Westboro Baptist SC ruling

[30ashopper]

A nearly unanimous Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the First Amendment protects even hurtful speech about public issues and upheld the right of a fringe church to protest near military funerals.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote that the Topeka, Kan.-based Westboro Baptist Church's picketing "is certainly hurtful and its contribution to public discourse may be negligible." But he said government "cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker."

"As a nation we have chosen a different course - to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate," Roberts said.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. was the lone dissenter.

"Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case," Alito wrote.

Supreme Court rules First Amendment protects church's right to picket funerals

The right ruling in my opinion. It's just unfortunate that something like this ever needed to be decided.

 

[Douglas the Intrepid]

It's unfortunate there are those that mask hateful and malicious rhetoric under the guise of free speech. I look forward to seeing karma come full circle for them.

 

[LuciferSam]

It's unfortunate there are those that mask hateful and malicious rhetoric under the guise of free speech. I look forward to seeing karma come full circle for them.

They're wasting their lives away in useless unproductive persuits. Their only joy in life is thinking that they might not be going to hell when they die.

 

[Bob Wells]

:boxing:

 

[Franny]

Very disappointing to hear this. I am confused and shocked that a so called church could view their actions as being humane.

 

[scooterbug44]

Wrong decision.

This group's rights do not trump other people's rights*.

They can spew their hatred in a variety pf forums and we have to protect their right to do so - I know that to do otherwise is a slippery slope - but there still can and should be restrictions as to WHERE they can do so and more importantly repercussions.

Just because you have the basic right to say/write something (or are standing on public property when you do so) doesn't mean you cannot still be found guilty of slander, libel, or various other crimes.

*Though that seems to be a common thread w/ the court lately, as corporations' rights now trump those of citizens.

 

[Sheila]

I wonder how the courts will rule when a grieving family member is driven to commit an act of violence against a member of this vile, disgusting, media whoring group?

 

[30A Skunkape]

I'm no constitutional expert (to say the least), but it sounds pretty simple to me. Not sure what Alito was thinking.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[Will B]

Just because you have the basic right to say/write something (or are standing on public property when you do so) doesn't mean you cannot still be found guilty of slander, libel, or various other crimes.

Unfortunately, slander and libel require some sort of measurable and documented loss or harm so you can't even go after them based on that.

They are the sole reason I joined the Patriot Guard.

 

[scooterbug44]

Frankly, I don't know how it hasn't already happened. Emotions run high and the demographics for sanity, violent tendencies, and carrying are not in the favor of the protesters.

If it's a jury trial I doubt they'd get convicted. (And I'd certainly be rooting for them to get off.)

Just the thought of someone PROTESTING at a funeral makes me temporarily insane, and these people have pushed the envelope way too far.